Modified Natural-Law Approach to Genetic Technologies

Steps toward a Bioethical Compass

Using the bioethical compass to decide when we have strayed off
course

Using the bioethical compass to decide how to stay on course

Challenges for our bioethical compass

Step 1

Designing a moral compass

Is a Bioethical Compass Desirable?

In a maze of social policy options, legal battles, and
technological advance, philosophical ethics can seem too slow and too arbitrary
to be useful.

Orientation to moral paths comes from the groups to which we
belong and the traditional perspectives that inspire those groups, not generic
moral compasses.

But to guide public debate between groups and across traditions we
need more that lots of opinions of lots of traditions.

Features of a Bioethical Compass

Capable of detecting the objective moral magnetic field of right
and wrong, if there is one.

Able to win near-universal consensus across cultures so that it
can facilitate public debate and judicious social policy.

Tells us when we are off course and when we have gone too far.

Helps us decide which course we should take when we need to make
her decisions.

Securing these Characteristics

The magnetic north of the best ethical compasses of the past is
the conception of the natural.

The natural seems unavailable for public debate in bioethics.
Consciousness of historical and cultural variation has made the
natural seem socially constructed.Evolutionary biology, AI, and biotechnologies have challenged the
very meaning of natural kinds.
If past assumptions about the natural have been correct, little of
what has actually happened in biotechnology would even have been possible.

Natural Law Revisited

Natural law ethics is needed to guide public debate even though
any particular natural law system cannot do the job alone.

We neen a clear sense of the natural to get a modified natural law
ethics going.

Begin with descriptions of nature offered by modern science, which
is as close as we can come to a global language.

This will not be enough but it is a start.

The philosophical point
Adopting conceptual framework that allows for the possibility of
objective moral norms-without simply assuming them-is the way to preserve the
possibility of registering such norms.

The practical point
Formulate a viable conception of the natural via science and
escape from intractable metaphysical disagreements of particular religious and
cultural traditions.

Step
2

Deciding when we have strayed off course

Criteria for Detecting Failures

Human rights

Sanctity of nature
Dignity of animals
Information beyond the reach of patent protection

Distributive justice considerations
Including fair access to therapeutic technologies
Preferential treatment for those with the greatest suffering

Requirements in using the positive criterion
We need to know what is adaptive, given a particular evolutionary
niche
We need to decide which niches we wish to be adapted for

Determining what is Adaptive

The ultimate technical and scientific challenge

Knowledge required to make such decision responsibly is
staggeringly complex:
Extensive knowledge of both genome and protein function
A known protein may have an unknown function
Experimentation is crucial but potentially devastating in its
consequences

Continued research and caution is required

Determining Desirable Life-Niches

The ultimate social engineering challenge.

Must take account of:
Species survival in unexpected circumstances
Individual flourishing
Species flourishing
Individual survival

Public policy debate of these issues is essential.

Step
4

Challenges for Our Bioethical Compass

Requirements for Using our Bioethical Compass

Development of policy-level language about rights and inherent
value of nature